anarchistica

1

anarchistica wrote

Probably Michiel de Ruyter. Without their foremost admiral the Republic would've possible been conquered by the French-English-German alliance. Mercantilist France would have beaten the foremost capitalists. Willem III wouldn't have conquered England and bankers and stockbrokers wouldn't have moved en masse to London. Without Willem III and the Republic, France may have won the War of Spanish Succession too.

3

anarchistica wrote

You forgot about:

  • DOMA - ban on same-sex marriage supported by a majority of Democrats

  • Iraq - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o

  • Rwanda - claims he didn't know, explicitly evaded the term genocide and according to the OAU prevented the UN from taking action (with help from the Belgians).

And don't forget DADT passed when the Democrats controlled all three houses!

2

anarchistica wrote

Oh no, quite the opposite. Pretty much anything bad about colonialism is ignored. The handful of positive effects (e.g. the ban on sati) emphasised. But it is interesting to see how warped the right-wing mindset is when it comes to the source of current problems (colonialism, capitalism, corruption) and the solution (capitalist colonialism).

Perhaps the only value in the article is a reminder of the complicity of local elites now and then.

-3

anarchistica wrote

It's actually an interesting article and not quite as simplistically bad as the title may indicate. It's also neither a joke, nor entirely serious - but a good thought experiment. It would be more helpful to actually critique his points rather than call for a wholesale ban of the article. He glosses over pretty much all atrocities and is a Liberal zealot so that wouldn't be too hard.